Philly-style conundrum: world-class building or parking lot?

Inga Saffron's article in today's paper on the proposed 1,500-foot skyscraper at 18th and Arch streets suggests such projects are good for the city and appropriate as we move into a new era of urban significance. I wholeheartedly agree.

The need for this front page treatment was made clear by some of the comments posted on philly.com after the Daily News ran an article last week on the same subject. There's nothing more poisonous to this city than ignorance mixed with pessimism, and the postings were sadly predictable: it's a waste of money, it's environmentally unsound (one called it "a traffic and environmental nightmare"), we don't need it, we'll never fill it with tenants, it's a terrorist magnet. All wrong.

As Saffron points out, the tower would be energy-efficient and connected to public transit. Such projects are far preferable to sprawling suburban office parks, replace parking lot dead zones with vibrant retail and office space and take advantage of Philly's emerging position as a convenient, low-cost alternative to Manhattan. The timing is perfect.

As to the terrorist threat, people have this notion that Al Qaeda went after the World Trade Center because it was tall. The WTC was attacked as a symbol of American financial might, just as the Pentagon was attacked as a symbol of military power. The mere fact of a building's height (or lack thereof) does not put it in any particular danger.

Philadelphia deserves this iconic structure.